LOVE

StudyBlue printing of LOVE html, body, div, span, applet, object, iframe, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, p, blockquote, pre, a, abbr, acronym, address, big, cite, code, del, dfn, em, font, img, ins, kbd, q, s, samp, small, strike, strong, sub, sup, tt, var, b, u, i, center, fieldset, form, label, legend, table, caption, tbody, tfoot, thead, tr, th, td { margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0; outline: 0; font-size: 100%; background: transparent; } body { line-height: 1; } blockquote, q { quotes: none; } blockquote:before, blockquote:after, q:before, q:after { content: ''; content: none; } /* remember to define focus styles! */ :focus { outline: 0; } /* remember to highlight inserts somehow! */ ins { text-decoration: none; } del { text-decoration: line-through; } /* tables still need 'cellspacing="0"' in the markup */ table { border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0; } /* end RESET */ .header { min-width:800px; } .logo { padding:6px 20px 2px 20px; margin:0; font-size:25px; font-weight:bold; color:#808285; position:relative; border-bottom: 1px solid #c5c5c5; } .logo-blue { color:#70adc4; } .logo-desc { font-weight:normal; font-size:19px; color:#cccccc; margin-top:50px; position:absolute; display: none; } .back-button { position:absolute; top:20px; right:20px; font-size:13px; line-height:25px; color:rgb(0,175,225); font-weight:normal; } .back-button a { color:rgb(0,175,225); } .instructions { padding:0; margin:0; width:100%; position:relative; color:rgb(100,100,100); } .step-holder { border-left:1px solid #ededed; margin-left:20px; } .steps { padding:15px 0; float:left; width:24%; border-right:1px solid #ededed; text-align:center; } .steps-01 { } .steps-02 { } .steps-03 { } .steps-04 { } .label { padding:5px 10px; } .print-button { } .print-button a { background-color:rgb(0,175,225); color:white; line-height: 19px; padding:9px 8px 5px 30px; font-size:14px; text-decoration:none; background-image: url(images/printer.png); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 7px 50%; -moz-border-radius: 5px; -webkit-border-radius: 5px; } .print-button a:hover { background-color:black; } .theNote .content { width: 8.0in !important; margin: 5px auto; padding:20px; background-color:white; } .theNote .header { border-bottom: 1px dashed #C8C8C8; font-size: 17px; padding: 0 0 10px; line-height: 19px; color: #00ADE1; min-width:500px; } .theNote .body { font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; padding: 10px 0; } .theNote{ padding:6px 0; clear:both; background-color: rgb(200,200,200); } .theNote h3{ color: rgb(100,100,100); } .theNote h1, .theNote h3{ background-color:white; padding:2px 20px; width:8.0in !important; margin: 0 auto; font-size: 15px; } .theNote h1{ padding-top: 10px; font-size: 15px; } .theNote h1:first-child{ font-size: 20px; } .theNote h3 { font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal; } #options { border: 3px double #ccc; padding: 5px 12px; margin: 10px 50px 10px 20px; float: left; } #info { border-top: 1px solid #ccc; padding-top: 5px; font-style: italic; } li { margin: 5px 10px 5px 25px; } ul li { list-style: disc; } ol li { list-style: decimal; } img { border: 0; } table { clear: both; width: 100%; border: 1px solid #c5c5c5; border-width: 1px 0; margin: 0; page-break-after: always; } table#page { page-break-after: auto; } td { text-align: center; font-size: 12px; border-bottom: 1px dashed #c5c5c5; height: 1.75in; width: 50%; padding-left: 15px; } .leftside { border-right: 1px solid #cccccc; padding: 0 15px 0 0; } .bottom td { border-bottom: none; } .clearfix { clear:both; line-height:1px; height:1px; } img { max-width:80%; max-height:150px; margin:20px; } @media print {.header { display: none; } .content .header{ display:inherit; } table { border: 1px dashed #bbb; border-width: 1px 0; } .theNote{ background-color:white; } } LOVE and SEX RECAP: we are attracted to others because: situational factors (propinquity) dispositional factors (similarity) behavioral/interpersonal factors (reciprocity) physical features (women v men) cross-cultural: adaptive? features that signal health=attractive? symmetry=health? evolutionary psych: "fitness' measured by reprod success men and women have diff strategies costs really low for men, high for women men's success is determined by quantity of offspring; maximize partners seek youth and beauty: signals fitness women's is det by raising offspring to maturity (quality); choose carefully, have partner that provides resources look for resources LOTS OF DATA TO SUPPORT (however, fitness and attraction no longer a signal of health) plus women value attractiveness just as much as men (esp hi-status women) both value attractiveness more than resources and both value (or at least they say) other chars more than either Can we scientifically study love? No, almost all research is correlational cannot randomly assign you to dissimilar lover condition and make you have a relationship love is diff measure how do you operationalize? "LOVE": used to describe many kinds of relations (favorite food or clothing) does not mean the same in all contexts varied definitions Theories of Love 3 major theories Passionate love vs compassionate love Triangular theory of love love styles #1: Compassionate Love intimacy and affection felt when we care deeply for a person but dont experience arousal in their presence Passionate Love intense longing we feel for a person, accompanied by physiol arousall when love is reciprocated we feel fulfilled and acstatic, when its not we feel despair This is what makes the diff between to love and to be in love Extension of two-factor theory "Until death do us part" compassionate love and passionate love can go together, as is often the case in long-term relationships passionate love trails off, compassionate love more stable #2 Sternber's 1986 Triangle intimacy, passion (hotness), commitment (empty love) love can exist with any single components or combos of 2 or 3 (as relat progresses you may go through multiple phases) romantic love: intimacy and passion fatuous love: passion and commitment compassionate love: int and comm consummate love: all 3 #3:LOVE STYLES 6 styles Eros: passionate or physical love Storge (AKA philia): slow-growing, affetionate, companionate (women) agape: selfless, giving, altruistic, more spiritual than phys mania: highly emotional, vascillates btw elation and despair pragma: pragmatic, realistic (Women) ludus: love is a game, multiple partners common (Men) Couples tend to have simil love styles (similarity) Successful couples tend to be really hi on eros and storge, low on ludus and mania Love & Culture: valuing passionate love (AKA eros) is not strictly Western more recent c-c work suggest that passionate love is found among all ppl culture may determine how passionate love is regarded and hence experienced/displayed note display rule in diffs of outward affection (shame families thru love) Exchange theories Social Exch Theory: Ppl feel posly or negly about relat depending on: perception of rewards " " of costs " " what kind of relat they deserve (comparison level) probability they could have better relationship w someone else (comparison levels for alternatives) ECONOMIC MODEL- PEOPLE ALSO HAVE A LOT OF INFO SExTh: Rewards-- personal chars and behavs of relat partner we appreciate ability to acquire ext resources by virtue of knowing perosn Costs-- annoying habits less desirable qualities resources that they take away OUTCOME is based of direct comparison of costs and rewards losing more than gaining determines satisfaction (does not mean you will break it off) you have to believe that you deserve more of rewards and less costs EXPECTATIONS (COMPARISON LEVEL) SExT: alternatives satisfaction w relationship depends on perception of likelihood you could replace it w a better one comparison to rewards and punishments received in an alt relat Why do ppl not leave unsatisfying relats, even when they know they deserve better? Investment model=social theory + investment investment= amt of time and resources devoted to relatn already Commitment level depends on comparison level for alternatives satisfaction and investment hi, no go sat and inv lo, go What about fairness Equity Theory: incurring equal rewards and costs? equitable relats where both share costs and rewards equally, happiest and most stable inequitable are not sustainable over-benefited (getting a lot w little time or energy) also unhappy--cognitive dissonance notion of reciprocity, when not met=dissonant under-benefited (getting few rewards, lots of costs, having to devote a lot of time and E to relat) worse for these than over-ben SEXT v EQ: rewards per cost v interpersonal dimension Determining if equity is achieved can be increasingly diff the more we get to know someone, the more reluctant we are to believe that we are simply exchanging favors; the less inclined we are to expect immed compensation for favor done equity relats change into: exchange relats: relats governed by need for equity (equal ratio of rewards and costs) keep tabs, expect immed repayment, feel exploited when favors not returned, being able to help other has no effect on mood communal: ppls primary concern is being responsive to the other person's needs don't like to be repaid immedly, dont feel exploited, dont keep tabs NEW RESEARCH Speed-dating study at Northwestern 2005 and 2007 3 part procedure: pre-event (ideal partner, wishes, etc) Event- 4 min speed dates, yes/no decision that night post-event: 10 or 12 f/u ?s if both said yes, set up on date every 3 or 4 days f/u Reciprocity and attraction two ways to meas liking dyadic: if i uniquely like you, do you uniquely like me? generalized: are likers liked in return the answer to both is typically yes Ps recall falling in love involving reciprocity what about "hard to get"? dyadic is good in romantic relats generalized is bad convey non-selectivity (sleazy or desperate) ?airre: romantic desire I really like my interaction partner sexually attracted likely to say yes to my interaction partner to what percentage of the other ppl here will this person say "yes"? Romantic v Platonic graph positive dyadic reciprocity negative generalized reciprocity romantic interest appears to come in one of two flavors: can be determined in 4 mins must send signals uniquely to that person Romantic Selectivity women more selective than men "Hi, I've noticed you around campus, and I find you very attractive" (Clark & Hatfield, 1989, 90) go out with me? M: 58%; F: 48% come over to my apt? M: 69%; F: 6% sleep w me? M: 75%; F: 0% Men romantically approach women it seems intuitive that fact 1 should explain 2 but women are actually The body affects the mind (embodied cognition) head-nodding study: you agree w persuasive message more when nodding vs shaking your head pen-in-mouth study find cartoons funnier w pen in your teeth vs lips arm-tension like Chinese ideopraphs more when pulling up towards self v pushing down on table SPEED DATING CONTEXT men rotated, then women rotated men rotate: greater romantic desire for women women rotated: difference went away approach is what helps ppl feel attracted Ideal partner preferences men value phys attrac more than women across cutures women value earning potential more than men across cultures different paradigms lead to diff outcomes answer on survey very different from reality eg incoming freshman dance at U Minnesota "think of ideal" attr, financial prospects, personality how much do these matter? men value att more than women men AND women value earning potential less than att, women more than men in that personality more important or at least as imp as att (equal for both) Romantic desire, chemistry, yessing; after the event; f/u correlation w romantic interest: attractiveness equally important, personality pretty important, no gender diffs ppl that said phys attr at bottom of list did not matter, reacted exactly the same to ppl (liked more attactive ppl) same w personality and earning potential Telling more than we can know: a priori theories do you know why you like stockings? why would you like someone as a partner? is it possible that we dont really know our mate preferences?? perhaps men and women are reporting some shared theory about what they prefer in a mate doesn't actually predcit whether we fall in love w them Ovulatory adaptations sexual behav and prefs change depending on where they are in cycle one study: women asked to judge which shirt they liked best, smelled after man sweat in it for days around the middle of womens cycle, perfer men who are more symmetrical prefer more dominant men at middle put more effort in physical appearance drawing study draw your outfit as more sexy when ovulating only true for single women attachment and sex physiologically motivated to have sex, socially motivated to stay w their partner; women in ovulation may stay and have sex w partner to increase attachment att should refocus the effects of ovul adaptations for "its own purposes" strong att bonds had less desire to cheat, if really strong, just wanted to be w partner in not so committed relationship, emotional connection relatively stable but more likely to want to cheat during ovulation for women not in relat, want to increase production, go find a man